I don't understand the Evangelical mindset - never have, never will!!

[Liz]

Sooooo, God was p****d off at what Adam did, that He extracted punishment on his progeny by having His own Son tortured to death. And now that the Son has died the most horrible death possible, the Father feels so much better. Odd.

Not quite, but the rudimentary idea is in there somewhere, I think. Though it's hard to see past all the muck you framed it in.

If you mean is God some kind of moody deity, throwing cosmic pity parties and tantrums, bullying creation for selfish means? No.
If you mean is God vindictive and ill-natured, exacting or requiring that which is unjust? No.
If you mean does God get some kind of satisfaction out of the defamation, murder, and humiliation of His Son? No.

If you mean is God angry at sin and with sinners? Yes.
If you mean did/does God see fit to punish man for his sin? Yes.
If you mean is God unwilling to simply overlook sin or be complicit therein? Yes.
If you mean are we worthy of death and separation from God because of sin? Yes.
If you mean did some sort of reckoning between God's justice and mercy have to be made to permit reconciliation? Yes.
If you mean did God, despite His offense at sin, find a way to pardon and reconcile the sinner? Yes.
If you mean did God see fit to send His Son, as a man, to willingly be a propitiation for our sins? Yes.
If you mean did God accomplish that in the redemptive work of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection? Yes.

I don't believe God is 'angry' at sin, if by 'angry' we understand something akin to human anger. God saw that man sinned, but He gave His own son to save us from our sins. That is something stronger than 'anger' as we humans know it. I honestly don't believe God is ever 'angry' with sin.

[Papist]

Sooooo, God was p****d off at what Adam did, that He extracted punishment on his progeny by having His own Son tortured to death. And now that the Son has died the most horrible death possible, the Father feels so much better. Odd.

Not quite, but the rudimentary idea is in there somewhere, I think. Though it's hard to see past all the muck you framed it in.

If you mean is God some kind of moody deity, throwing cosmic pity parties and tantrums, bullying creation for selfish means? No.
If you mean is God vindictive and ill-natured, exacting or requiring that which is unjust? No.
If you mean does God get some kind of satisfaction out of the defamation, murder, and humiliation of His Son? No.

If you mean is God angry at sin and with sinners? Yes.
If you mean did/does God see fit to punish man for his sin? Yes.
If you mean is God unwilling to simply overlook sin or be complicit therein? Yes.
If you mean are we worthy of death and separation from God because of sin? Yes.
If you mean did some sort of reckoning between God's justice and mercy have to be made to permit reconciliation? Yes.
If you mean did God, despite His offense at sin, find a way to pardon and reconcile the sinner? Yes.
If you mean did God see fit to send His Son, as a man, to willingly be a propitiation for our sins? Yes.
If you mean did God accomplish that in the redemptive work of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection? Yes.

There are actually verses in the New Testament that speak of God's wrath. Do you have any of them at your finger tips?

[Cleopas]

I don't believe God is 'angry' at sin, if by 'angry' we understand something akin to human anger. God saw that man sinned, but He gave His own son to save us from our sins. That is something stronger than 'anger' as we humans know it. I honestly don't believe God is ever 'angry' with sin.

Psalm 7:11
God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.


Psalm 21:8-9
Thine hand shall find out all thine enemies: thy right hand shall find out those that hate thee. Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.


Micah 5:15
And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.


Nahum 1:2
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.


Mark 3:5
And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.


John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;


Ephesians 5:6
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.


Colossians 3:6
For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

[Cleopas]

Hey Papist,

I noted a few passages about God's anger or wrath toward sins and sinners in the reply above. There's lot's more, but these are the clearest and simplest to prove thew point. Such as these are what you had in mind, right?

[Asteriktos]

Interestingly, this topic was discussed recently, albeit briefly, in the thread Does God Get Angry?

[Cleopas]

Interestingly, this topic was discussed recently, albeit briefly, in the thread Does God Get Angry?

Interesting quote.

"God is not an egotistical tyrant. He does not get angry - contrary to the sermon, 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' that you no doubt read in high school. Nor does He live according to some external code of justice whereby He is constrained to punish sinners." 

I would retort...

God is not an egotistical tyrant, indeed. However, He does get angry, as Johnathan Edwards so rightly pointed out in his famed sermon, and so many numerous passages of sacred writ emphatically declare.

No, God does not live according to some external code of justice whereby he is constrained to punish sinners. rather, God lives according to an internal code of justice, emanating from His very nature; His inherent holiness, goodness, and justice. Thereby is He constrained to punish sinners.

[ozgeorge]

Cleopas, I can't imagine anything as stupid  as a Deity with perfect foreknowledge Who is surprised by the imperfections of the Work of His own hands and gets angry with them. If God does not overlook sin, why then do we ask in Psalm 51 (LXX) "Turn They Face away from my sin..." which is literally asking Him to overlook them?

[Melodist]

How does everyone define

Sin?

God's anger?

God's wrath?

I think this might also have to do with the difference in the understanding in about the nature of hell that is common between Orthodoxy and most Protestant churches.

Just a thought.

[Cleopas]

Cleopas, I can't imagine anything as stupid  as a Deity with perfect foreknowledge Who is surprised by the imperfections of the Work of His own hands and gets angry with them.

It is not that God is surprised. Anger need not spring from unexpected occurrence of wrong doing, only from the occurrence of wrong doing itself.
I knew my children were prone to got to bed and not go to sleep tonight; to talk, and play, and laugh and disobey me, even though I've taught them, warned them, and corrected them on numerous already. Still, when they disobeyed me tonight, I was angered, and I punished them accordingly.

As for God's turning from anger, He is able (as He instructs us) to be angry without sinning, and even to put away anger. And He is able to do so perfectly.

[ozgeorge]

It is not that God is surprised. Anger need not spring from unexpected occurrence of wrong doing, only from the occurrence of wrong doing itself.

Does God have perfect foreknowledge or not? What is the point of getting angry with someone's misbehaviours when you knew full well they were going to do it?

I knew my children were prone to got to bed and not go to sleep tonight; to talk, and play, and laugh and disobey me, even though I've taught them, warned them, and corrected them on numerous already. Still, when they disobeyed me tonight, I was angered, and I punished them accordingly.

I can't do anything about how you want to bring up your kids, but thinking that God operates the way you do is simply creating God in your own image. If you knew the kids were going to get out of bed, why did you get angry? Whats the point? Can't you correct them without being angry?

As for God's turning from anger,

No. I quoted the psalm in which we pray that He turn His face away from our sin. You seem to equate sin with anger.

[Cleopas]

I know what semantics are Oz George. Nice try though.

Rationalize, intellectualize, de-emotionalize, and reinterpret what the word of God says if you must...

But it will stay say God is angry with the wicked, daily.
It will stay say that disobedience deserves and brings His eventual wrath.
It will stay say God will not at all acquit the wicked.
It will stay require a basis for expiation, a means of atonement.
It will still say Jesus is that propitiation for sins.
It will still reveal God as perfect in knowledge, including His foreknowledge, and yet as having emotional capacity as well.
It will keep on declaring both the justness and the mercy of God, the goodness and severity of He who is both just and justifier of them that believe.

[ozgeorge]

I know what semantics are Oz George. Nice try though.

Its not semantics Cleopas, its rationality. Anger is an irrational passion and therefore beneath the Dispassionate God and His rational sheep.

Rationalize, intellectualize, de-emotionalize, and reinterpret what the word of God says if you must...

Are the people of your Faith community supposed to be irrational and emotional? It is not so in the Orthodox Church. We don't get carried away by our passions- our task is to tame and bridle them. We are the rational sheep of Christ.

[Riddikulus]

I can't do anything about how you want to bring up your kids, but thinking that God operates the way you do is simply creating God in your own image. If you knew the kids were going to get out of bed, why did you get angry? Whats the point? Can't you correct them without being angry?

This is a good point and one that I could never accept when involved with Evangelicals. I'm not sure at what stage I came to see it as a kind of idolatry.

[Cleopas]

I can't do anything about how you want to bring up your kids, but thinking that God operates the way you do is simply creating God in your own image. If you knew the kids were going to get out of bed, why did you get angry? Whats the point? Can't you correct them without being angry?

This is a good point and one that I could never accept when involved with Evangelicals. I'm not sure at what stage I came to see it as a kind of idolatry.

Riddikulus and Oz George,

My reference here it not meant to convey that God necessarily operates or thinks the way we do, or that I do. rather my intent was to show that even a finite, fallible being, such as myself can experience non-sinful anger in spite of foreknowing my children would disobey and/or misbehave. If I can do that, it's no great stretch the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of all Creation can do so infinitely more so, and in total perfection, than I.

[ozgeorge]

a finite, fallible being, such as myself can experience non-sinful anger in spite of foreknowing my children would disobey and/or misbehave. If I can do that, it's no great stretch the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of all Creation can do so infinitely more so, and in total perfection, than I.

What are the criteria of this "non-sinful" or "righteous" anger you are able to experience?

[Riddikulus]

I can't do anything about how you want to bring up your kids, but thinking that God operates the way you do is simply creating God in your own image. If you knew the kids were going to get out of bed, why did you get angry? Whats the point? Can't you correct them without being angry?

This is a good point and one that I could never accept when involved with Evangelicals. I'm not sure at what stage I came to see it as a kind of idolatry.

Riddikulus and Oz George,

My reference here it not meant to convey that God necessarily operates or thinks the way we do, or that I do. rather my intent was to show that even a finite, fallible being, such as myself can experience non-sinful anger in spite of foreknowing my children would disobey and/or misbehave. If I can do that, it's no great stretch the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of all Creation can do so infinitely more so, and in total perfection, than I.

I think the issue is, Cleopas, that Evangelicals still see God in human terms, understanding his anger as an extention of human anger; rather than seeing expressions of anger in scripture as a limited human expression of how God is. I came to the understanding that the Evangelical God is merely a bigger and better version of oneself; you know without all the nasty bits. And to different people with different personalities that always came to mean something else. Those who tended to have an authoritarian personality really worshipped an authoritarian God; their focus was on the wrath to come; an angry God. In all the sermons that I can recall; the preacher merely expressed a God that was a version of himself. It was possible to look at the preaching schedule to know what kind of God was being preached on any particular Sunday. One Pastor I knew would express God as an improvement on the father and husband that he was himself; a God with a terrific sense of humour. Another pastor would express a merciful and loving God with tears streaming down his face. Yet another would express a vengeful God with anger in his voice, personally expressing his offence as if God thought just like him. His God was ever perched waiting to take out His wrath on sinners; usually that meant those who didn't see eye to eye with the pastor.  

[Liz]

'Anger' is quite different from 'wrath' or 'fury' (incidentally, I don't think God is literally 'furious', since that means possessed by demons of Greek mythology!). That's all I'll say for now as I haven't read the other thread linked to, and I expect this point is made more fully there.

[katherineofdixie]

...rather my intent was to show that even a finite, fallible being, such as myself can experience non-sinful anger in spite of foreknowing my children would disobey and/or misbehave. If I can do that, it's no great stretch the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of all Creation can do so infinitely more so, and in total perfection, than I.

I really don't mean to criticize your child-rearing methods, but how is getting angry at your children for acting like children "non-sinful"?

I think that this may be the real heart of the matter. You believe that there is such a thing as "non-sinful anger," while we believe that anger is one of the passions we are trying to overcome. Therefore it may be reasonable for you to believe in God's anger, and why we tend to see God as more like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, which we will hear during the Divine Liturgy on Sunday.

[ialmisry]

Interestingly, this topic was discussed recently, albeit briefly, in the thread Does God Get Angry?

Interesting quote.

"God is not an egotistical tyrant. He does not get angry - contrary to the sermon, 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' that you no doubt read in high school. Nor does He live according to some external code of justice whereby He is constrained to punish sinners." 

I would retort...

God is not an egotistical tyrant, indeed. However, He does get angry, as Johnathan Edwards so rightly pointed out in his famed sermon, and so many numerous passages of sacred writ emphatically declare.

No, God does not live according to some external code of justice whereby he is constrained to punish sinners. rather, God lives according to an internal code of justice, emanating from His very nature; His inherent holiness, goodness, and justice. Thereby is He constrained to punish sinners.

No, He is not.  If He was, then He would have told Adam and Eve "Eat the fruit and I will kill you."  And He would grumble with the field workers who worked all day and got paid the same as those who came at the last hour.

[Cleopas]

What are the criteria of this "non-sinful" or "righteous" anger you are able to experience?

Not sinning in, with, or because of said anger.

I really don't mean to criticize your child-rearing methods, but how is getting angry at your children for acting like children "non-sinful"?

I think that this may be the real heart of the matter. You believe that there is such a thing as "non-sinful anger," while we believe that anger is one of the passions we are trying to overcome. Therefore it may be reasonable for you to believe in God's anger, and why we tend to see God as more like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, which we will hear during the Divine Liturgy on Sunday.

How? Because I did not sin in, with, or because of that anger. I was angered because of disobedience, repetitiously so. Pure and simple. Scripture clearly declares we can be angry and sin not. Alas, what was meant as a clarification has turned into a digression.

As to Divine anger, Scripture not only clearly declares one (thus even God) can be angry and sin not, but also that Jesus was angered on occasion (if only at the money changers), and emphatically that God experiences anger. We may not like to think of Him so, but who is really conflating the truth about God with their own ideas here as relates to anger? Scripture couldn't be clearer on the matter. It remains for us only to believe and accept it accordingly.

Anyhow, trying to get back on point....

No, He is not.  If He was, then He would have told Adam and Eve "Eat the fruit and I will kill you."  And He would grumble with the field workers who worked all day and got paid the same as those who came at the last hour.

The key here is propitiation. Christ either was or was not such. If He was, and Scriptures says as much, then God's sense of justice or holiness needed appeasement to provide grounds for His gracious pardon of sins and reconciliation with sinners. Else propitiation is not propitiation, and Scripture is false.

[Marc1152]

Here are two articles about the Orthodox view of the Atonement Theory.

As I understand it, this theory is relatively new.

http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-The%20Atonement

http://sarumtheologian.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/penal-substitutionsatisfaction-theory-of-atonement-an-orthodox-critique/

[Schultz]

...rather my intent was to show that even a finite, fallible being, such as myself can experience non-sinful anger in spite of foreknowing my children would disobey and/or misbehave. If I can do that, it's no great stretch the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of all Creation can do so infinitely more so, and in total perfection, than I.

I really don't mean to criticize your child-rearing methods, but how is getting angry at your children for acting like children "non-sinful"?

I think that this may be the real heart of the matter. You believe that there is such a thing as "non-sinful anger," while we believe that anger is one of the passions we are trying to overcome. Therefore it may be reasonable for you to believe in God's anger, and why we tend to see God as more like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, which we will hear during the Divine Liturgy on Sunday.

Fr Hopko puts forward a very good case, IMO, that anger is not necessarily a de facto passion.  After all, Psalm 4 clearly states (as Cleopas has pointed out) that we can be "angry, but sin not".  

Of course, we have to ask what the criteria for such "sinless anger" can be.  In his podcast, Fr. Tom tells a story from the Desert Fathers on that very question.  The moral of the story is that humanity can have this "sinless anger" if a person is angry at something or someone who separates them from God.  But that is just the feeling of anger.  What one does with it, of course, can be sinful.

The previous podcasts on Anger and Wrath of God are also worth listening to as they also pertain to this current discussion.

[ialmisry]

What are the criteria of this "non-sinful" or "righteous" anger you are able to experience?

Not sinning in, with, or because of said anger.

I really don't mean to criticize your child-rearing methods, but how is getting angry at your children for acting like children "non-sinful"?

I think that this may be the real heart of the matter. You believe that there is such a thing as "non-sinful anger," while we believe that anger is one of the passions we are trying to overcome. Therefore it may be reasonable for you to believe in God's anger, and why we tend to see God as more like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, which we will hear during the Divine Liturgy on Sunday.

How? Because I did not sin in, with, or because of that anger. I was angered because of disobedience, repetitiously so. Pure and simple. Scripture clearly declares we can be angry and sin not. Alas, what was meant as a clarification has turned into a digression.

As to Divine anger, Scripture not only clearly declares one (thus even God) can be angry and sin not, but also that Jesus was angered on occasion (if only at the money changers), and emphatically that God experiences anger. We may not like to think of Him so, but who is really conflating the truth about God with their own ideas here as relates to anger? Scripture couldn't be clearer on the matter. It remains for us only to believe and accept it accordingly.

Anyhow, trying to get back on point....

No, He is not.  If He was, then He would have told Adam and Eve "Eat the fruit and I will kill you."  And He would grumble with the field workers who worked all day and got paid the same as those who came at the last hour.

The key here is propitiation. Christ either was or was not such. If He was, and Scriptures says as much, then God's sense of justice or holiness needed appeasement to provide grounds for His gracious pardon of sins and reconciliation with sinners. Else propitiation is not propitiation, and Scripture is false.

No, your dictionary is faulty.

ἱλάσκομαι Short Definition: be merciful
be merciful, make reconciliation for.

Middle voice from the same as hileos; to conciliate, i.e. (transitively) to atone for (sin), or (intransitively) be propitious -- be merciful, make reconciliation for.
Word Origin: ἵλεως
Short Definition: gracious.

Nothing juridical there.

[Papist]

Hey Papist,

I noted a few passages about God's anger or wrath toward sins and sinners in the reply above. There's lot's more, but these are the clearest and simplest to prove thew point. Such as these are what you had in mind, right?

Yes sir. I am glad you found them much quicker than I would have. It demonstrates that the modern EO idea of God not being just and not having wrath is just not biblical.

[ialmisry]

Hey Papist,

I noted a few passages about God's anger or wrath toward sins and sinners in the reply above. There's lot's more, but these are the clearest and simplest to prove thew point. Such as these are what you had in mind, right?

Yes sir. I am glad you found them much quicker than I would have. It demonstrates that the modern EO idea of God not being just and not having wrath is just not biblical.

As my priest said, Protestants and the Vatican are two sides of the same coin.  In this case, the same boogey man theology.

[Papist]

What are the criteria of this "non-sinful" or "righteous" anger you are able to experience?

Not sinning in, with, or because of said anger.

I really don't mean to criticize your child-rearing methods, but how is getting angry at your children for acting like children "non-sinful"?

I think that this may be the real heart of the matter. You believe that there is such a thing as "non-sinful anger," while we believe that anger is one of the passions we are trying to overcome. Therefore it may be reasonable for you to believe in God's anger, and why we tend to see God as more like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, which we will hear during the Divine Liturgy on Sunday.

How? Because I did not sin in, with, or because of that anger. I was angered because of disobedience, repetitiously so. Pure and simple. Scripture clearly declares we can be angry and sin not. Alas, what was meant as a clarification has turned into a digression.

As to Divine anger, Scripture not only clearly declares one (thus even God) can be angry and sin not, but also that Jesus was angered on occasion (if only at the money changers), and emphatically that God experiences anger. We may not like to think of Him so, but who is really conflating the truth about God with their own ideas here as relates to anger? Scripture couldn't be clearer on the matter. It remains for us only to believe and accept it accordingly.

Anyhow, trying to get back on point....

No, He is not.  If He was, then He would have told Adam and Eve "Eat the fruit and I will kill you."  And He would grumble with the field workers who worked all day and got paid the same as those who came at the last hour.

The key here is propitiation. Christ either was or was not such. If He was, and Scriptures says as much, then God's sense of justice or holiness needed appeasement to provide grounds for His gracious pardon of sins and reconciliation with sinners. Else propitiation is not propitiation, and Scripture is false.

No, your dictionary is faulty.

ἱλάσκομαι Short Definition: be merciful
be merciful, make reconciliation for.

Middle voice from the same as hileos; to conciliate, i.e. (transitively) to atone for (sin), or (intransitively) be propitious -- be merciful, make reconciliation for.
Word Origin: ἵλεως
Short Definition: gracious.

Nothing juridical there.

everything I have read on the passages about the greek in the passages about atonement says that proper translation is Propitiation.

[ialmisry]

What are the criteria of this "non-sinful" or "righteous" anger you are able to experience?

Not sinning in, with, or because of said anger.

I really don't mean to criticize your child-rearing methods, but how is getting angry at your children for acting like children "non-sinful"?

I think that this may be the real heart of the matter. You believe that there is such a thing as "non-sinful anger," while we believe that anger is one of the passions we are trying to overcome. Therefore it may be reasonable for you to believe in God's anger, and why we tend to see God as more like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, which we will hear during the Divine Liturgy on Sunday.

How? Because I did not sin in, with, or because of that anger. I was angered because of disobedience, repetitiously so. Pure and simple. Scripture clearly declares we can be angry and sin not. Alas, what was meant as a clarification has turned into a digression.

As to Divine anger, Scripture not only clearly declares one (thus even God) can be angry and sin not, but also that Jesus was angered on occasion (if only at the money changers), and emphatically that God experiences anger. We may not like to think of Him so, but who is really conflating the truth about God with their own ideas here as relates to anger? Scripture couldn't be clearer on the matter. It remains for us only to believe and accept it accordingly.

Anyhow, trying to get back on point....

No, He is not.  If He was, then He would have told Adam and Eve "Eat the fruit and I will kill you."  And He would grumble with the field workers who worked all day and got paid the same as those who came at the last hour.

The key here is propitiation. Christ either was or was not such. If He was, and Scriptures says as much, then God's sense of justice or holiness needed appeasement to provide grounds for His gracious pardon of sins and reconciliation with sinners. Else propitiation is not propitiation, and Scripture is false.

No, your dictionary is faulty.

ἱλάσκομαι Short Definition: be merciful
be merciful, make reconciliation for.

Middle voice from the same as hileos; to conciliate, i.e. (transitively) to atone for (sin), or (intransitively) be propitious -- be merciful, make reconciliation for.
Word Origin: ἵλεως
Short Definition: gracious.

Nothing juridical there.

everything I have read on the passages about the greek in the passages about atonement says that proper translation is Propitiation.

Then they can't read Greek and are reading substitutionary atonement, penal substitution, etc. into that void.

[Cleopas]

No, your dictionary is faulty.

ἱλάσκομαι Short Definition: be merciful
be merciful, make reconciliation for.

Middle voice from the same as hileos; to conciliate, i.e. (transitively) to atone for (sin), or (intransitively) be propitious -- be merciful, make reconciliation for.
Word Origin: ἵλεως
Short Definition: gracious.

Nothing juridical there.

It seems to me your's is selective.

I have spent some time reading numerous dictionaries, etymology listing, lexical aids, etc.  ... All of which basically agree, yielding a consensus meaning of not only a conciliatory function but of appeasing an offended deity. Therefore, I freely admit the conciliatory nature of propitiation, but as coupled together with the atoning, expiating, or appeasing one.

Romans is clear, as quoted earlier, God provided grounds in the offering of Christ for our atonement whereby He could reconcile His justness and His mercy, permitting Him to pardon and reconcile with sinners. That is propitiation.

Romans 3:24-26
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is : Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Here it is per the Orthodox Study Bible version...

Romans 3:24-26
Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


P.S. Oz George, there's a clear Scriptural answer to your question from earlier as well, about sins in the OT. Per the above verses God forbare them in view of the atoning sacrificial work of Christ.

[Papist]

Hey Papist,

I noted a few passages about God's anger or wrath toward sins and sinners in the reply above. There's lot's more, but these are the clearest and simplest to prove thew point. Such as these are what you had in mind, right?

Yes sir. I am glad you found them much quicker than I would have. It demonstrates that the modern EO idea of God not being just and not having wrath is just not biblical.

As my priest said, Protestants and the Vatican are two sides of the same coin.  In this case, the same boogey man theology.

Not really. While protestants believe that Christ in a sense suffered a damnation for us, Catholics do not. For Catholics, we believe that God was personally "moved" by such a mertiorious act on the part of Christ on behalf of man, that he allowed us to enter into a new relationship of grace with him. I really think C.S. Lewis description of the matter makes alot of sense in this context.

[Papist]

Hey Papist,

I noted a few passages about God's anger or wrath toward sins and sinners in the reply above. There's lot's more, but these are the clearest and simplest to prove thew point. Such as these are what you had in mind, right?

Yes sir. I am glad you found them much quicker than I would have. It demonstrates that the modern EO idea of God not being just and not having wrath is just not biblical.

As my priest said, Protestants and the Vatican are two sides of the same coin.  In this case, the same boogey man theology.

Ignore the Bible if you want but that's gonna be a problem for you.

[Papist]

No, your dictionary is faulty.

ἱλάσκομαι Short Definition: be merciful
be merciful, make reconciliation for.

Middle voice from the same as hileos; to conciliate, i.e. (transitively) to atone for (sin), or (intransitively) be propitious -- be merciful, make reconciliation for.
Word Origin: ἵλεως
Short Definition: gracious.

Nothing juridical there.

It seems to me your's is selective.

I have spent some time reading numerous dictionaries, etymology listing, lexical aids, etc.  ... All of which basically agree, yielding a consensus meaning of not only a conciliatory function but of appeasing an offended deity. Therefore, I freely admit the conciliatory nature of propitiation, but as coupled together with the atoning, expiating, or appeasing one.

Romans is clear, as quoted earlier, God provided grounds in the offering of Christ for our atonement whereby He could reconcile His justness and His mercy, permitting Him to pardon and reconcile with sinners. That is propitiation.

Romans 3:24-26
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is : Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Here it is per the Orthodox Study Bible version...

Romans 3:24-26
Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


P.S. Oz George, there's a clear Scriptural answer to your question from earlier as well, about sins in the OT. Per the above verses God forbare them in view of the atoning sacrificial work of Christ.

Does your church believe that when God declares us righteous, that his words are fruitful and literally make us righteous?

[ialmisry]

No, your dictionary is faulty.

ἱλάσκομαι Short Definition: be merciful
be merciful, make reconciliation for.

Middle voice from the same as hileos; to conciliate, i.e. (transitively) to atone for (sin), or (intransitively) be propitious -- be merciful, make reconciliation for.
Word Origin: ἵλεως
Short Definition: gracious.

Nothing juridical there.

It seems to me your's is selective.

I have spent some time reading numerous dictionaries, etymology listing, lexical aids, etc.  ... All of which basically agree, yielding a consensus meaning of not only a conciliatory function but of appeasing an offended deity. Therefore, I freely admit the conciliatory nature of propitiation, but as coupled together with the atoning, expiating, or appeasing one.

Romans is clear, as quoted earlier, God provided grounds in the offering of Christ for our atonement whereby He could reconcile His justness and His mercy, permitting Him to pardon and reconcile with sinners. That is propitiation.

That is nonsense.

God (at least ours, the one in the Bible) is not schizophrenic, needing integration of His justice and His mercy.  He is quite fine.

Pagan Greek gods needed appeasement. 
http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.35:2:122.LSJ

Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Romans 3:24-26
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is : Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Here it is per the Orthodox Study Bible version...

Romans 3:24-26
Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


P.S. Oz George, there's a clear Scriptural answer to your question from earlier as well, about sins in the OT. Per the above verses God forbare them in view of the atoning sacrificial work of Christ.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JNaDupoSycMC&pg=PA287&dq=%E1%BC%B1%CE%BB%CE%AC%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9&cd=1#
Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint By Bernard A. Taylor

[Alveus Lacuna]

Cleopas, I can't imagine anything as stupid as a Deity with perfect foreknowledge Who is surprised by the imperfections of the Work of His own hands and gets angry with them. If God does not overlook sin, why then do we ask in Psalm 51 (LXX) "Turn They Face away from my sin..." which is literally asking Him to overlook them?

If he does not get angry, then why does the Holy Prophet-King David say in Psalm 21 (LLX) "Let thy hand be found by all thine enemies: let thy right hand find all that hate thee. 9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven at the time of thy presence: the Lord shall trouble them in his anger, and fire shall devour them."

In the Orthodox evening prayers, why do we ask "O Lord, have mercy on us, for in Thee have we put our trust. Do not be angry with us, nor remember our iniquities, but look down on us even now, since Thou art compassionate, and deliver us from our enemies. For Thou art our God, and we are Thy people; we are all the work of Thy hands, and we call on Thy name."

[John of the North]

Cleopas, I can't imagine anything as stupid as a Deity with perfect foreknowledge Who is surprised by the imperfections of the Work of His own hands and gets angry with them. If God does not overlook sin, why then do we ask in Psalm 51 (LXX) "Turn They Face away from my sin..." which is literally asking Him to overlook them?

If he does not get angry, then why does the Holy Prophet-King David say in Psalm 21 (LLX) "Let thy hand be found by all thine enemies: let thy right hand find all that hate thee. 9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven at the time of thy presence: the Lord shall trouble them in his anger, and fire shall devour them."

In the Orthodox evening prayers, why do we ask "O Lord, have mercy on us, for in Thee have we put our trust. Do not be angry with us, nor remember our iniquities, but look down on us even now, since Thou art compassionate, and deliver us from our enemies. For Thou art our God, and we are Thy people; we are all the work of Thy hands, and we call on Thy name."

Anthropomorphism.

‘The God of the Church as known and proclaimed by the Orthodox experience and tradition has never had anything to do with the God of the Roman juridical tradition … he has never been thought of as a vengeful God who rules by fear, meting out punishments and torment for men.’
‘The Freedom of Morality” by C. Yannaras

[Alveus Lacuna]

Anthropomorphism

My, what a big word!  You've confounded me with your wisdom!

[Alveus Lacuna]

Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

No?  Does he only "need" blood on doorposts to keep himself from slaying the firstborn sons in the house?  Does he need to drain the blood of innocent Egyptian children to prove a point?

[John of the North]

Anthropomorphism

My, what a big word!  You've confounded me with your wisdom!

No need for sarcasm. It's not my fault you seem hell-bent on believing in a wrathful God.

[Alveus Lacuna]

It's not my fault you seem hell-bent on believing in a wrathful God.

It's not my fault you seem hell-bent on ignoring a wrathful God.  Look, I don't think that "anger" in God is what we conceive of as anger, but the same disclaimer applies to "love" or any other concept we project onto a Being infinitely beyond our comprehension.  But to just completely ignore a view of God all over Holy Scripture just seems strange to me.

[Alveus Lacuna]

‘The God of the Church as known and proclaimed by the Orthodox experience and tradition has never had anything to do with the God of the Roman juridical tradition … he has never been thought of as a vengeful God who rules by fear, meting out punishments and torment for men.’

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him.

I agree that the punishment is self-inflicted, but it is also cooperative.  If salvation is cooperative, as so many Orthodox insist, then how is damnation not equally cooperative, if they are indeed the same experience based on the person's receptivity to God?

[John of the North]

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him.

I agree that the punishment is self-inflicted, but it is also cooperative.  If salvation is cooperative, as so many Orthodox insist, then how is damnation not equally cooperative, if they are indeed the same experience based on the person's receptivity to God?

Damnation is caused by the lack of cooperativeness on the part of the believer. This is why the gates of Hell are locked from the inside. God IS Love, and is experienced by all. Those who reject that experience and who refuse to cooperate with God's grace (through repentance), consign themselves to Gehenna. Gehenna being the creation of the unrepentant sinners.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I think the simple answer here is that the Church teaches both realities.

Why do the Orthodox prayers ask that God not be angry with us is he is not angry with us over our sin?

Has anybody ever read the Jordanville prayer book?  In those prayers, I seem to recall they even ask the Mother of God not to get angry over the things that we've done.  Oh, wait, here it come: ROMAN CATHOLIC INFLUENCE!  The ultimate trump card when you're in any corner.

[John of the North]

I think the simple answer here is that the Church teaches both realities.

Why do the Orthodox prayers ask that God not be angry with us is he is not angry with us over our sin?

Has anybody ever read the Jordanville prayer book?  In those prayers, I seem to recall they even ask the Mother of God not to get angry over the things that we've done.  Oh, wait, here it come: ROMAN CATHOLIC INFLUENCE!  The ultimate trump card when you're in any corner.

How can there be two realities?? The only reality is that God is Love. It may be that certain persons experience that love in a form they describe as wrath, but that doesn't mean that God Himself is wrathful. It just means that people are reading their own experiences into the texts.

[ozgeorge]

God does not change like we do. In Him there is no shadow of turning. He is the same yesterday and today. He is not "sometimes angry and sometimes not".

[Alveus Lacuna]

God does not change like we do. In Him there is no shadow of turning. He is the same yesterday and today. He is not "sometimes angry and sometimes not".

You're right.  He doesn't change.  He's always capable of being angry if He is so inclined.

Doesn't this seem to indicate that God does change, or can at least change his mind:

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

He seems sorry about something.  Even if this isn't a "change" in some absolute sense, a change is still indicated.

Or is God perpetually and unflinchingly regretful?  Just because we understand an act or "feeling" of God in human terms doesn't mean that god is limited to that conception, or that he must be forever "stuck" in that mode of operation.  We perceive his anger, his regret, etc. with our feeble minds in a feeble way, but they point to some sort of a reality about God.

Why is everyone trying to whitewash God of any potentially offensive traits?

[ozgeorge]

He doesn't change.  He's always capable of being angry if He is so inclined.

The first sentence completely contradicts the second. If God becomes angry, He has changed.

Doesn't this seem to indicate that God does change, or can at least change his mind:

"Change His mind"? Heresy plain and simple. If God ever "changed His mind" then He would not be God since He thought something inferior to a different thought and decided to go with the better thought. God does not repent. God does not change. Period.

Why is everyone trying to whitewash God of any potentially offensive traits?

Nobody is trying to "whitewash God" (as though that were even necessary). What they are trying to do is bring you into line with Orthodox Christian teaching. Have you asked your Priest about this? (obviously, you won't listen to anyone here). And by the same token as the question you asked about "everyone" here who is Orthodox, here are some questions to ask yourself:
1) Is everyone else, including those who have been Orthodox all their lives wrong and you right?
2) Why is it necessary for you that God be subject to emotions?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: I don't understand the Evangelical mindset - never have, never will!!